Sexual Awareness Week

[Claeren]

But the Gauntlet was INVITED to cover the event BY THE STUDENTS UNION, the ones who organized it.

If anyone is a hypocrite it is the SU. What a bunch of fataing dorks. And vote for them? Please, anyone with a real life is too busy working and/or having a life to care about the SU and its petty inbred politics....


Not only is the SU dumb enough to have strippers at one of their events but they are dumb enough to complain when the press THEY invited publishes pictures (with no face shown!) from that event. That IS pretty dumb, no matter how you cut it....

IS the Gauntlet expected to take pictures of faces when they cover other events? Football games? Concerts? Club Week? Whatever... ? Obviously, so what is different now? If anything i commend them for restraining and not showing her face. My only complaint is that the article accompanying the pic is pretty weak and has nothing to do with it really....

And how can there be no outcry from the University over having the strippers parade though MacHall before the event? Whose idea was that? There is/could have been children, foreign scholars, diplomats, etc forced to see that, hardly appropriate but some how fitting at our GREAT UofC...


Claeren.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Claeren@Mar 13 2005, 12:42 PM
But the Gauntlet was INVITED to cover the event BY THE STUDENTS UNION, the ones who organized it.

Not only is the SU dumb enough to have strippers at one of their events but they are dumb enough to complain when the press THEY invited publishes pictures (with no face shown!) from that event. That IS pretty dumb, no matter how you cut it....

IS the Gauntlet expected to take pictures of faces when they cover other events? Football games? Concerts? Club Week? Whatever... ? Obviously [not?], so what is different now? If anything i commend them for restraining and not showing her face. My only complaint is that the article accompanying the pic is pretty weak and has nothing to do with it really....

Ah, I didn't realize that.

If the SU invited the Gauntlet then they have no business complaining.

However I still stand by my assertion that deciding to do something in public doesn't mean you automatically consent to anyone taking your picture and publishing it.

From what I gathered from skimming the thread, this wasn't a situation where the girl was simply part of a crowd, with the paper choosing to publish the picture of the crowd in general, but instead was a situation where the photo was taken of her specifically and published to feature her.

[Claeren]

I am not sure what else a student paper is supposed to do then?

There is an event being held ON CAMPUS, many people are involved, but the centre piece (in all of the Student Unions brilliance) is a bunch of strippers dancing around a tiger cage with a nearly naked man inside. A picture is taken of this girl, who happens to also be a student, an interesting twist making the picture that much more intreguing.... seems pretty straight forward... ?

To suggest they not take a picture is like suggesting a car magazine go to the Detroit Auto show but not take pictures of the cars, or i suppose, suggesting they get permission before publishing each pic they took.

What is the point of having a special show to SHOW OFF something and then not allow news coverage to show people who were not there what was shown.... so stupid it is hurting my head.... lol....


Claeren.

[Bill Bumface]

When she saw a camera did she start spazzing and yell at the photographer to not take pictures then cover herself and leave?

... didn't think so

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mike F+Mar 13 2005, 02:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Mar 13 2005, 02:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Claeren@Mar 13 2005, 12:42 PM
But the Gauntlet was INVITED to cover the event BY THE STUDENTS UNION, the ones who organized it.

Not only is the SU dumb enough to have strippers at one of their events but they are dumb enough to complain when the press THEY invited publishes pictures (with no face shown!) from that event. That IS pretty dumb, no matter how you cut it....

IS the Gauntlet expected to take pictures of faces when they cover other events? Football games? Concerts? Club Week? Whatever... ? Obviously [not?], so what is different now? If anything i commend them for restraining and not showing her face. My only complaint is that the article accompanying the pic is pretty weak and has nothing to do with it really....

Ah, I didn't realize that.

If the SU invited the Gauntlet then they have no business complaining.

However I still stand by my assertion that deciding to do something in public doesn't mean you automatically consent to anyone taking your picture and publishing it.

From what I gathered from skimming the thread, this wasn't a situation where the girl was simply part of a crowd, with the paper choosing to publish the picture of the crowd in general, but instead was a situation where the photo was taken of her specifically and published to feature her. [/b][/quote]
She was performing though. Not just hanging out.

I have a nifty little book called "The Journalist's Legal Guide" and while I'm no lawyer by any stretch, I found a couple things that seem relevant.


Public Performances
Similar rules apply to reviews of public performances. A person who enters the public arena invites public comment. But the comment must be fair. The public acts of a person can be criticized but the comment cannot extend to the private life of any individual

The Defence of Consent
It is rare that anyone would consent to be defamed, but it can happen. The defence of consent is rooted in the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a person consents cannot be considered an injury). The principle is that anyone who knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself to a danger, should be thought to have assumed the potential consequences.

General Issues in Privacy
Can you take someone's picture and use it as you wish? There are few laws dealing with visual invasions of privacy other than what's noted in the provincial Privacy Acts. The common law is also spotty in this area.
Generally, you can take anybody's picture without their permission. The crucial question, though, is whether you need consent to publish it. For day-to-day news reporting, where a person is photographed as part of an event or in a public place, consent isn't needed. And despite popular misconceptions, it's no different with children or minors and the consent of the parent is not needed.

Far as I can tell, this gal gave all sorts of consent and even if she didn't, she did.

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by kermitology+Mar 13 2005, 12:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kermitology @ Mar 13 2005, 12:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Thunderball@Mar 13 2005, 01:53 AM
This is very typical of the Gauntlet, and their arrogant disregard for decorum, class and professionalism... they need the book thrown at them and then some. As a member of the Senate, I intend to make sure that happens... and to think, we considered working with the Gauntlet to promote the University... yikes!

So the Gauntlet being invited to cover this event, sponsored by you in the SU, and they're the ones lacking professionalism? Give me a break.. I can't believe I voted for you. Take some damn responsibility, the most outcry from this is the naked people walking through MacHall, and that is not the fault of the Gauntlet.

Is this city so full of prudes that you can't see a naked woman without being terrified? What are you going to do when you finally get laid, run away crying to your mom about the bad lady with the vagina? Someone tell me exactly what was wrong with the story, it was something going on at the univeristy, and it's newsworthy. Sure the picture is a little brash, but, from what I understand, the photographer was trying NOT to get a money shot.

This woman's argument is utter crap in my opinion. You work as a stripper, you decided to participate in this event AT YOUR SCHOOL, and when people recognize you, you get p*ssed? I could very well be someone in her class, go to the show, see her and say..

"Holy shinguard, that chick is in my philosophy class!" Then I go to class and tell everyone, "See that girl in the back row? She was stripping in MacHall yesterday, you should go check it out!"

Seriously.. [/b][/quote]
Look, there's such a thing as professionalism... when that Streaker came on Saddledome ice and fell over, did the photo show him sprawled out on the ice with his manhood out to see?? No. If they wanted a picture of the sex show, take a picture of someone who isn't completely nude.

You cannot have a nude person in a publication easily accessible to the public. Its that simple. Imagine if some child grabbed that paper, hell, hoardes of them walk by them everyday, some parent would lose their mind and sue. Its not prudishness, its the way things are done and its that simple. The Gauntlet has been walking a very thin line lately, and they got arrogant with this one.

And as for the SU deciding to "invite" the Gauntlet, I can't believe you'd try to pin that on all the representatives. We all know that any decision like that is the department of the Exec, and no, I wouldn't have approved it, and I have been making that clear to my contemporaries in Senate and in the SU. You don't bring cameras into a strip club, you don't bring cameras into a sex show, that simple. I hope whoever "invited" the Gauntlet to photograph and publish pictures like that is reprimanded too. The SU has also been walking a thin line, and that needs to be dealt with too.

[Shawnski]

Funny how societies differ.

Should this have occurred in Britain, or other European countries, no one would have batted an eyelash.

As for the "lady" in question, all I have to say is that "you live by the sword, you die by the sword"

Keep it behind closed doors (i.e. YOUR bedroom), or expect any and all possible outcomes.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

The editor of the Gauntlet responds: Link

Given that her face was obscured in the photo, I can't believe "Honey" has any reason to be claming that she's moritifed to be on campus. Certainly she did more damage to POSE knowingly on page B1 of the Herald. I'll recognize her from that, not the photo in the Gauntlet.

As for the people that thought that children would be scared for life by seeing these pictures, a SOMEWHAT similar parallel would be the Janet Jackson incident. Was this photo as bad as that? I'd say no. How many children read the Gauntlet, and if they did see the photo, would it really be that bad? Is it any worse than a copy of Maxim or the LaSenza catalog that gets delivered along with my herald?

It sounds like many people would like nothing more than to shut down the Gauntlet and have Comm/Media push out Administration approved stories. Was this incident really that bad or did they have an agenda against the Gauntlet far beyond this one picture?

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by I-Hate-Hulse@Mar 13 2005, 05:31 PM
The editor of the Gauntlet responds: Link

Given that her face was obscured in the photo, I can't believe "Honey" has any reason to be claming that she's moritifed to be on campus. Certainly she did more damage to POSE knowingly on page B1 of the Herald. I'll recognize her from that, not the photo in the Gauntlet.

As for the people that thought that children would be scared for life by seeing these pictures, a SOMEWHAT similar parallel would be the Janet Jackson incident. Was this photo as bad as that? I'd say no. How many children read the Gauntlet, and if they did see the photo, would it really be that bad? Is it any worse than a copy of Maxim or the LaSenza catalog that gets delivered along with my herald?

It sounds like many people would like nothing more than to shut down the Gauntlet and have Comm/Media push out Administration approved stories. Was this incident really that bad or did they have an agenda against the Gauntlet far beyond this one picture?

She was fully nude, wearing jewelry, but everything was very visible.

As for an agenda against the Gauntlet, Its really hard to say.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>She was performing though. Not just hanging out.

I have a nifty little book called "The Journalist's Legal Guide" and while I'm no lawyer by any stretch, I found a couple things that seem relevant.


Public Performances
Similar rules apply to reviews of public performances. A person who enters the public arena invites public comment. But the comment must be fair. The public acts of a person can be criticized but the comment cannot extend to the private life of any individual[/b]

That has to do with defamation/libel -- if someone does a public performance you're allowed to say anything you like about the performance without having to worry about being sued

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
The Defence of Consent
It is rare that anyone would consent to be defamed, but it can happen. The defence of consent is rooted in the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria (that to which a person consents cannot be considered an injury). The principle is that anyone who knowingly and voluntarily exposes himself to a danger, should be thought to have assumed the potential consequences.

Again referring to protection of the right to comment where someone has said "Go ahead and say anything you want about me"

And the bar for proving consent will always be high, and will almost always need to be explicit

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
General Issues in Privacy
Can you take someone's picture and use it as you wish? There are few laws dealing with visual invasions of privacy other than what's noted in the provincial Privacy Acts. The common law is also spotty in this area.
Generally, you can take anybody's picture without their permission. The crucial question, though, is whether you need consent to publish it. For day-to-day news reporting, where a person is photographed as part of an event or in a public place, consent isn't needed. And despite popular misconceptions, it's no different with children or minors and the consent of the parent is not needed.[/quote]

Now that's relevant, but then I wasn't saying she has a legal right to sue the paper (I admit that using the word 'consent' probably made it seem so).

The sentement among many was, "She was in public, so she shouldn't be complaining" and I was just saying she has a moral, if not legal, right to be p*ssed that someone just wandered in took her picture without asking and published it.

If you saw some guy on the street walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, they're on a public street so he's legally entitled to do it"?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mike F+Mar 13 2005, 10:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Mar 13 2005, 10:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That has to do with defamation/libel -- if someone does a public performance you're allowed to say anything you like about the performance without having to worry about being sued

Again referring to protection of the right to comment where someone has said "Go ahead and say anything you want about me"

And the bar for proving consent will always be high, and will almost always need to be explicit

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 03:06 PM
General Issues in Privacy
# Can you take someone's picture and use it as you wish?# There are few laws dealing with visual invasions of privacy other than what's noted in the provincial Privacy Acts.# The common law is also spotty in this area.
# Generally, you can take anybody's picture without their permission.# The crucial question, though, is whether you need consent to publish it.# For day-to-day news reporting, where a person is photographed as part of an event or in a public place, consent isn't needed.# And despite popular misconceptions, it's no different with children or minors and the consent of the parent is not needed.

Now that's relevant, but then I wasn't saying she has a legal right to sue the paper (I admit that using the word 'consent' probably made it seem so).

The sentement among many was, "She was in public, so she shouldn't be complaining" and I was just saying she has a moral, if not legal, right to be p*ssed that someone just wandered in took her picture without asking and published it.

If you saw some guy on the street walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls would you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, they're on a public street so he's legally entitled to do it"? [/b][/quote]
She's got no leg to stand on is the moral of the story so I guess we are on the same page.

"Comment" can include photographs. It doesn't just mean criticism spelled out in words.

She may have a moral right to be p*ssed. Tough break lady.

As for the guy walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls -- I would do something about it. That doesn't mean though that what he's doing is illegal (although this book is 10 years old and things may have changed).

The scenario is kind of irrelevant though, don't you think? A guy taking pictures of young girls is one thing. A newspaper photographer taking pictures of a performance (of any kind) by an adult a public place is something else entirely.

[Clarkey]

The last time I went to the strippers was about 4 years ago.

I went with some guys from school after working on a group project at the University one evening. It was the usual deal, we sat up close, hollered the way 19 year old guys do.

The next day I was walking to one of my classes and I walked past a girl who was a stripper from the night before! She recognized me too because she gave me a funny look.

[Freeway]

Having a friend who used to be an editor at the Gauntlet, here's my take:
-Naked women in a public place where children may or may not be is probably a bad idea. Having them there because the SU invited them there is a terrible idea. Therefore, allowing the performers to strut around Mac Hall was a stupid thing for the SU to do.
-Naked women in a semi-private place as part of Sexual Awareness Week is a fairly dicey idea, but as long as the women involved consent to it and children or the easily offendable aren't around (i.e. access to nudity is controlled), it's cool.
-Pictures of naked women in a public newspaper is a bad idea.

The SU's to blame for the scandal involving the roaming naked folk, but the Gauntlet should've shown some amount of self-censorship. Nobody under 18 could've gotten in to see "Honey" perform, so how come they can easily check out her naughty bits in the Gauntlet?

That said, this all could've been handled discreetly by the young lady bitching to the SU and the Admin without making the whole thing a media circus. By making this all public, everyone involved has done more harm than good.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Mar 13 2005, 09:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Mar 13 2005, 09:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>She's got no leg to stand on is the moral of the story so I guess we are on the same page.

"Comment" can include photographs. It doesn't just mean criticism spelled out in words.[/b]

What someone alleges when the bring a defamation lawsuit is that the other person made an untrue allegation that would tend to demean the object of the allegation in the eyes of the public at large.

How do you do that with a photograph?

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 09:46 PM
She may have a moral right to be p*ssed. Tough break lady.

So going back to my original example, and keeping in mind that I'm not talking aboout legal rights: If you're on a beach and some guy just walks up and starts taking pictures of you, you don't feel at all unfcomfortable of violated? If not then you simply have a difference of opinion with me and her.

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 09:46 PM
As for the guy walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls -- I would do something about it. That doesn't mean though that what he's doing is illegal (although this book is 10 years old and things may have changed).

The scenario is kind of irrelevant though, don't you think? A guy taking pictures of young girls is one thing. A newspaper photographer taking pictures of a performance (of any kind) by an adult a public place is something else entirely.[/quote]

The example was just to show that just because something is strictly legal doesn't mean we won't feel it's wrong.

They are at different ends of the spectrum, so you might feel that one isn't as bad as the other, but there is as significant difference between saying "She's been nude in public before, so I don't see why she'd be that upset," and saying, "She's a slut and has no right to be upset."

[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Freeway@Mar 13 2005, 11:56 PM
Having a friend who used to be an editor at the Gauntlet, here's my take:
-Naked women in a public place where children may or may not be is probably a bad idea. Having them there because the SU invited them there is a terrible idea. Therefore, allowing the performers to strut around Mac Hall was a stupid thing for the SU to do.
-Naked women in a semi-private place as part of Sexual Awareness Week is a fairly dicey idea, but as long as the women involved consent to it and children or the easily offendable aren't around (i.e. access to nudity is controlled), it's cool.
-Pictures of naked women in a public newspaper is a bad idea.

The SU's to blame for the scandal involving the roaming naked folk, but the Gauntlet should've shown some amount of self-censorship. Nobody under 18 could've gotten in to see "Honey" perform, so how come they can easily check out her naughty bits in the Gauntlet?

That said, this all could've been handled discreetly by the young lady bitching to the SU and the Admin without making the whole thing a media circus. By making this all public, everyone involved has done more harm than good.

Exactly!

Excellent take.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Mike F+Mar 14 2005, 12:08 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike F @ Mar 14 2005, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What someone alleges when the bring a defamation lawsuit is that the other person made an untrue allegation that would tend to demean the object of the allegation in the eyes of the public at large.

How do you do that with a photograph?

So going back to my original example, and keeping in mind that I'm not talking aboout legal rights: If you're on a beach and some guy just walks up and starts taking pictures of you, you don't feel at all unfcomfortable of violated? If not then you simply have a difference of opinion with me and her.

<!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@Mar 13 2005, 09:46 PM
As for the guy walking around taking pictures of pre-pubescent girls -- I would do something about it.# That doesn't mean though that what he's doing is illegal (although this book is 10 years old and things may have changed).#

The scenario is kind of irrelevant though, don't you think?# A guy taking pictures of young girls is one thing.# A newspaper photographer taking pictures of a performance (of any kind) by an adult a public place is something else entirely.

The example was just to show that just because something is strictly legal doesn't mean we won't feel it's wrong.

They are at different ends of the spectrum, so you might feel that one isn't as bad as the other, but there is as significant difference between saying "She's been nude in public before, so I don't see why she'd be that upset," and saying, "She's a slut and has no right to be upset." [/b][/quote]
Mike F said:
What someone alleges when the bring a defamation lawsuit is that the other person made an untrue allegation that would tend to demean the object of the allegation in the eyes of the public at large.

How do you do that with a photograph?

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this woman feels as though she was demeaned by the photograph and not by anything written about her.

Also, there are lots of ways someone could be demeaned or defamed by a photograph. If someone published a picture of me strolling down the street and the story was about pedestrian traffic then that's acceptabl. If they put that same picture in the paper and it's connected to a story about handsome men selling poisoned milk to school children then I'm not so happy and I've been defamed.

Mike F said
So going back to my original example, and keeping in mind that I'm not talking aboout legal rights: If you're on a beach and some guy just walks up and starts taking pictures of you, you don't feel at all unfcomfortable of violated? If not then you simply have a difference of opinion with me and her.

Yes I would feel uncomfortable and violated if that happened to me but you must see the difference between sitting on the beach and stripping for money in front of a paying crowd of hundreds of people. Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, there is a difference in the level of privacy you can expect.

Mike F said

They are at different ends of the spectrum, so you might feel that one isn't as bad as the other, but there is as significant difference between saying "She's been nude in public before, so I don't see why she'd be that upset," and saying, "She's a slut and has no right to be upset."

I don't think that was me.

[moon]

Originally posted by Freeway@Mar 13 2005, 11:56 PM
-Naked women in a semi-private place as part of Sexual Awareness Week is a fairly dicey idea, but as long as the women involved consent to it and children or the easily offendable aren't around (i.e. access to nudity is controlled), it's cool.

I don't think that they should have to worry about the easily offended.

One it is kind of difficult to ensure that these people don't show up. You exactly ID for easily offendableness.

Second, if you are easily offended then avoid places like this.

[Claeren]

I think it is extremely important to point out that the strippers went wondering through MacHall before the show to drum up support.

That is VERY public, and VERY much opens up the extent to which the Guantlet should have to censor itself comparativily. If the SU and the show organizors are allowed to assume that it is okay to wonder around campus half naked then how can the Guantlet be expected to not assume the same?



Again, the SU and this girl are hypocrites....


Claeren.